Brief Thoughts on Kim Davis

06Sep15

Lately I’ve been limited on writing time, so I’m trying this. The video about Kim Davis refusing marriage licenses to gay couples is four minutes long. If you watch it, please let me know what you think. Thanks,

Chris

Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

I think the need for a serious discussion is in need. Respect for the law and democracy is something I am quite interested in. I see many people disregard the values of the democratic process (from all sides of the ideological spectrum), and many more misunderstand the separation of church and state. I think your comments are a breath of fresh air in a discourse filled with personalisation and emotion based arguments. I don’t think I disagree with anything you said. Even though I consider myself politically on the left.
Have a good day 🙂

I agree about the hypocrisy… And if her religious beliefs won’t allow her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, she is free to seek another job.. I personally don’t care about gay marriage, it’s your business who you love, but don’t try to force others to participate.( ie bakeries and wedding chapels.) This brings up another hypocrisy though. If you want us to respect your choices, then you must accept ours. Don’t cry to the Supreme Court for your rights and the sue to force someone that doesn’t want to participate in your wedding to be involved.

BUT if I had been her I probably would have let someone in my office that wasn’t opposed to issuing the licenses do so. I think that would have met the legal obligation and also allowed her to have a clear conscience.

Chris, That’s a Great Video. The situation has me torn because we discussed this at my Synagogue (I’m a Messianic Jew(NOT Jews for jesus!!) after a lifetime of Traditional Reform Conservative Judaism) Yesterday… But I DO Agree that It’s hypocritical to expect us to want it BOTH Ways.

I’d still love to have you Join us on the Podcast when you have a Thursday Evening free. If not we can be flexible some…

With Great Respect Always…..I am

Dr. Bill Chachkes(Responsible Shooting Journalist, Football Writer & Apple Specialist) Firearms Chat Podcast-Producer/Lead Host CWO-4 U.S. Army 1979-1991(Ret./Med.) Aviation Branch/Special Operations Command Twitter: @askdrfootball Facebook: Dr.Football Proud to be a Veteran, Proud to be a Soldier, Proud to be a Night Stalker The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment(S.O.A.R.) The Army’s Taxi for SpecialOperators

I prefer reading them to watching you talk about them, but that’s just the way I am. I was a bit distracted by the production quality, but I also realize that’s not overly germane to the point you’re trying to make – then again, good writing gets out of the way of the point it’s trying to make, and that requires editing as well.

I love dogs, but she didn’t get enough face time. All I saw was her butt!

I read your blog regularly, and while I disagree with you on a lot of political issues (I’m one of those eeevul libruls) I always respect what you write. Because you think for yourself, you usually go right to the heart of the matter, and you’re reasoned rather than emotional. I value that, and I value that someone who’s as Right as I am Left isn’t playing with rhetoric and buzz phrases, but is telling me why you think as you do. This video was a perfect example of that. Thank you.

Hey!
Great video, good point and Awesome shirt 🙂
My only point will be, that at the beginning of the video you didn t articulate enough and your texan accent was a bit hard to understand for my foreigner ears, but I assume it was because it was your first vid, and you were a bit stressed.

+1 for difficulties to understand (Yes I’m foreigner too:-) but in my case it wasn’t due accent. My listening skill is poor.
English written subtitles would help me a lot, but wait … you tried video due lack of time for writing.

At issue here is that KY law states under “402.005 Definition of marriage: is defined as between 1 man and 1 woman” and under “402.020 Other prohibited marriages. (1)(d) Between members of the same sex.”

Kim Davis refused to sign any marriage certificate, which means that no one can get married in her county. By denying all applications it would seem to me that she is following the supreme court decision. Just not in the way that people expected her to do.

The key question that no one seem to be asking is getting married a right or a privilege?

The right to gun ownership is a right, it’s enumerated in the 2nd amendment.

If I’m reading this correctly, Davis objected to her name/office being listed on the marriage certificates. Under the both the Federal and Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, if someone raises a religious objection to a generally applicable law then a two-part test comes into play:

1) Is the law advancing a compelling government interest? (I don’t agree with the Obergefell decision, but based on it I recognize that SSM would pass this part of the test)

AND

2) Is this the least restrictive way to advance the compelling interest? (That’s where I think Davis is correct – it would be trivial to print marriage licenses that use the name/title of a deputy clerk.)

The reason Davis told her deputies to not issue licenses was that they would still be bearing her name. If her court filing is to be believed, she stopped issuing licenses altogether because she didn’t want to treat traditional and SSM marriages differently.

I don’t watch videos. I find it time consuming and boring. It is easier and faster for me to read. Consequently, I can’t critique your statements. If you ever publish transcripts, or go back to writing, let me know.

Chris,
Nice video, well done with a smooth and professional delivery, but I still prefer the written word. As an aside, I listened with the closed captions on and discovered it missed about a third of what you said.

Kim Davis has been released from jail. The question is will she do her job?

If I went to the butcher and asked to buy pork chops and he told me it was against his faith to sell them to me, I could simply go to another store. If I ordered a meal in a restaurant the waiter decides not to take my order because it was his belief my order would harm my health, I could go to another restaurant.

Imagine going to your local zoning board and asking to file for a variance in zoning and the clerk told you no, they didn’t believe you made enough money to need a variance. Who would go to? You couldn’t file an appeal, the clerk don’t take it. Could you call the police? What could they do?

No. That person doesn’t need to be jailed. They need to be fired.

For the record, I support gay marriage. Why? One, it is the law of the land and two, who of us so brash to claim to have intellectual capacity to truly and correctly understand God’s thoughts? I know it not me and I doubt it’s some clerk running an office anywhere.

The parish priest who married my wife and I had a policy. He’d marry anyone and bury anyone because which of us knew God’s mind.

I also agree that if we insist our opponents respect the interpretations of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, we are also bound to respect those decisions we don’t agree with.

Father Keogle is no longer with us and clearly needs no defending but…

A marriage license isn’t a sacrament, it’s a legal document. The sacrament of Marriage, even with my poor understand of theology, is performed by the two people, with the priest, rabbi, minister, shaman acting as God’s witness.

Before I accept your judgment on the validity of anyone’s theology, could you prove your complete, total and perfect understanding of God’s eternal mind?

I certainly don’t have a complete understanding of God’s mind, nor do I think anyone has, but if Fr. Keogle is a priest, he has had plenty of Biblical and Church instruction as to what constitutes a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church (and God). The Church seems to believe it knows something of God’s mind on a variety of subjects through revelation. Did you not attend Pre Cana classes? There are a number of requirements a couple must fulfill to be married in the Catholic Church. Or was your priest Episcopalian? I am confused.

Your dog was a delightful addition to the video. Stick to writing, Chris. The video was fine, but your words are more compelling in print. You are a very good writer.
Here is my take on the situation: Ms. Davis’ first amendment rights are being violated. Per bookwormroom.com, who says it better than I can, “The Supreme Court effectively imposed a religious test on government employment.
In Kennedy’s brave new world, if you wish to work for the government, you must abandon a core tenet of your faith.” Now, marriage is a sacrament for many Christians and an essential doctrine for all. The court is forcing a denial of faith as a condition for employment under a Constitution which guarantees religious freedom. Civil disobedience is the correct response to the imposition of an unjust law. She was willing to accept the price, so who are you (or anyone) to gainsay her? The happy couple could simply have driven one county over to obtain a license, a minor inconvenience considering they had already traveled from Illinois. The Supreme Court was way out of bounds on this one. Obergefell may be the law of the land, but where in the Constitution is the court given power to change the meaning of words, i.e., marriage? They can rule up means down and it still doesn’t make it so. It’s too late to be crying about rule of law, which has already been overthrown as evidenced by the many examples of progressive hypocrisy mentioned in your video.http://www.bookwormroom.com/2015/09/04/kim-davis-21st-century-civil-disobedience-and-the-federal-overthrow-of-the-first-amendment/

Confusion is good. Most of the major advances come about when someone said I’m confused and set to work clearing up the fog. Without confusion, we would have no theology.

I think what Father Keogle was trying to say is that we should be careful in valuating people’s relationship with God and treat them with respect and a little charity.

And as far as church guidance, I remember when eating meat on Friday cut you off from God’s love. That was changed and the childlike question remains, “What happens to all those people who died cut off from God’s love from a hot dog on Friday now that its okay?

Even as we type, the pope is increasing access to the sacrament of marriage to divorced people. What was that line about what God has joined together…..

So, we’re not talking about the topics Chris normally covers so I’m dropping out and you can have the last work. To paraphrase what the rabbi told Arch Bunker: “Try a little Christian charity….”

As to eating meat on Friday: “This was a discipline, and the sin was in disobeying the authority (binding and loosing power) of the Church to lay down this rule, not in eating the meat per se.
Some people, pointing to the change in discipline, mock it saying,
What happens now to all the people who went to hell because they ate meat on Friday?
Well, the question is irrelevant. If you are 15 years old and your parents tell you to be in by eleven, and you come in at 11:30, and you are punished; then when you are 17, they said, “be in by midnight”, did you all of a sudden cease to have broken their rules when you were 15?
No, of course not, because you broke the rule as they were at the time. If they legalize marijuana, will they let all those guilty in the past of possession and trafficking out of jail instantly?
No, because rescinding a law is not retroactive. The Church is free to change her disciplines from time to time and we need only obey the ones currently in force.”http://www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2009_09SEPT/2009SeptHasTheVaticanEverStatedThis.cfm
The Church is a benevolent dictatorship, not a democracy.
The Pope is making anulments faster and less expensive, changing zero Church teaching on divorce and what God has joined together.
Regarding Christian charity, where is the lack? If you don’t want to be Christian or Catholic, don’t be. “The great danger in our society is not that it is populated by sinful people, but that it’s populated by heretics
who campaign to move their favorite sins from the “bad” column to the “good,” as if God is some indecisive bureaucrat whose moral laws can be amended or abolished by popular vote.
Many sins — especially any of the sexual variety — have their own PR teams these days, making it all the more necessary for Christians to fight back, as unpleasant and politically incorrect as the fight might be.” Matt Walsh / If You Are a Christian but You Reject Christ’s Teachings, You Are Not a Christianhttp://www.theblaze.com/contributions/if-you-are-a-christian-but-you-reject-christs-teachings-you-are-not-a-christian/
So where is the charity for Ms. Davis?

As a foreigner I’m not well informed of Ms. Davis case and what gay marriage is exactly about.
On one hand I agree with you Chris, that state clerk or police officer etc. has to obey law regardless their religion, but on other hand that (obeying law or orders) was exactly what did warders in camps during WWII. So part of me shouting she is a hero in some aspects.
Problem is why you (and me too) need some official document that I’m married to my wife. Who cares? In my case government cares – some things are almost impossible for your partner if you aren’t married.
In CZ we have “registered partnership” for gays and lesbians. They got some rights like husband/wife (They can inherit without testament, in the hospital they can get information about others health) but it is not equal to marriage (i.e. they cannot adopt children).

Czech Republic isn’t whole Europe 🙂 Other countries have different law I think that people in Slovak recently refused something like gay marriage completely. On the other hand I would expect more equality in Netherlands or Sweden.
In CZ they cannot adopt children – rules for it expect married couple and registered partnership isn’t marriage. It was discussed again recently, but rules kept unchanged.
Honestly I think in CZ we have reasonable compromise – gays (lesbians too) can live together as couple, during job interview nobody can ask you about your sexual orientation etc. but It is preferred to grow children up in “traditional family”.

By virtue of being a Christian, one believes in a higher power they must obey. Given that, it makes rational sense that she refuse. I am sure she fully understands that she would be jailed and was willing to risk it.

Secular society is quickly establishing the supremacy of our nation’s laws over the laws of God. How is anyone surprised that there would be conflict and that those of faith choose the supremacy of God’s law over the law of a nation? Christians are choosing the supremacy of God’s law and they know full well they will be punished by man and prefer to be rather than be punished by God.

So what do you think the end run to this conflict between God’s law and a nations law will be? Does one dare to speculate? Talk about a can of worms to be opened and debated, how does one keep it civil?

Here is the problem: I run for office and am elected and agree to uphold and enforce the laws of our nation. A new law is enacted and puts me in direct conflict with my beliefs. I have two choices: Uphold the law in direct conflict with God’s law, or resign. Our nation has put the beliefs of Christians in direct conflict of these laws leaving Christians no future in many government positions, to include our military (Chaplains).

One side or the other, this pot is boiling over and WILL result in persecution if not resolved in a manner that preserves the right of Christians to not violate their beliefs and still enjoy protection under the law and have access to all opportunities without being compelled to violate their beliefs. It is what it is. As a Christian, I see it coming and know full well that there will be a price to pay for my beliefs and I gladly accept this fate.

“And he said to me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

Well, if I am to believe the above, I do not need to fight this evil that is creeping into society. My only obligation is to defend myself and family from it and since I do believe it, I don’t feel the weight of that yoke on my shoulders to “do” something about it.